GeauxSioux Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Before I offer the crazy question, I want to say that I can't wait for the Sioux to become an official member of the Big Sky and I'm just tossing this out there to get kicked around. What if .... The Sioux went FBS? The WAC is begging for schools to join. One of the reasons that has been given for allowing the Sioux to forgo the nickname and logo, is that that UND wouldn't be able to host any NCAA playoffs games. The only teams that I can think of that could host NCAA playoff games are the football team and possibly the women's hockey team. If the Sioux went the FBS route, their is no playoffs. You are playing football for conference championships and bowl appearances. Sure the Sioux wouldn't be able to play Minnesota or Iowa, but I'm sure there are a large number of teams that would play the Sioux. UND could tell the NCAA, put us back on your "hostile and abusive" list, we are keeping the name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimdahl Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think your "sure the Sioux wouldn't be able to play Minnesota or Iowa" is the key problem... A few schools (Wisconsin also) were developing policies of not playing UND because we were under NCAA sanctions, and (as much as Douple is to be believed) it was causing some aggravation with potential conferences. I wonder if a lot of schools who were happy to look the other way when the issue was unsettled would feel the need to blacklist UND once we were officially snubbing the NCAA and under active sanctions? But, you're right, we certainly could've waited for that to happen rather than hide from the mere threat of it. However, your question could also be extended to -- how much do we care about possibly being able to host a home FCS football game? Even in the Big Sky, if we kept the name we'd just have to give up home playoff games. I wonder how that would be handled -- would it automatically revert to the lesser team, or could we choose a neutral spot (e.g. Fargodome?) I suppose the former, because even if it weren't held at the Alerus, UND would still be "hosting". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmksioux Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 First off, do we really want to be a part of the current WAC? It's a conference which is struggling to find an identity right now. I agree with the last few posters as far as teams wanting to schedule us if we keep the Fighting Sioux name and go back on the sanctions list. I mentioned in another post about the Dartmouth and Texas Tech examples. Do you think those schools would want to schedule UND and again and have to deal with criticism they received the last time they played us. Other schools/Presidents will catch wind of examples such as those and it will snowball meaning many teams will at least think twice about scheduling us if not flat out develop policies such as Minnesota, Iowa, etc...imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 With what I have witnessed from the NCAA if a non BCS school does not play by their rules they will go out of their way to make it hell for them. Yet they will bend their own rules for BCS schools and players. We are a pimple on the ass of the whole scheme of college athletics and not one of the big boys, the NCAA doesn't care if it pisses us off and as long as they are writing the checks there are a whole lot of schools who are going to go right along with their plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShilohSioux Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 With what I have witnessed from the NCAA if a non BCS school does not play by their rules they will go out of their way to make it hell for them. Yet they will bend their own rules for BCS schools and players. We are a pimple on the ass of the whole scheme of college athletics and not one of the big boys, the NCAA doesn't care if it pisses us off and as long as they are writing the checks there are a whole lot of schools who are going to go right along with their plan. If we're a bubble team when it comes to football playoffs, don't put it past the NCAA to pass us over for another team with an "approved" nickname either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yababy8 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Sure the Sioux wouldn't be able to play Minnesota or Iowa I think it's a bit of an assumption to think that schools would be so bold as to blacklist UND the at this point after there's been a Sioux tribe that has voted on the issue giving overwhelming support for the name. Unlike before, a blacklist would be hard to justify now. We have as much support as florida and illinois. Remember a black list action is a seperate action than that of the NCAA decree. and if they treated us differently than the other schools in my opinion they would expose themselves to lawsuit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I think it's a bit of an assumption to think that schools would be so bold as to blacklist UND the at this point after there's been a Sioux tribe that has voted on the issue giving overwhelming support for the name. Unlike before, a blacklist would be hard to justify now. We have as much support as florida and illinois. Remember a black list action is a seperate action than that of the NCAA decree. and if they treated us differently than the other schools in my opinion they would expose themselves to lawsuit They would have no obligation to play UND, which means they can decide not to play UND for any reason. The only obligations would be if they were in the same league or in a tournament. The courts can't make them schedule a non-conference game. There is no chance that any kind of lawsuit would be possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farce poobah Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Before I offer the crazy question, I want to say that I can't wait for the Sioux to become an official member of the Big Sky and I'm just tossing this out there to get kicked around. What if .... The Sioux went FBS? The WAC is begging for schools to join. UND is dramatically underfunded and under-resourced to really make FBS work right now. Give it 10 years, especially if UND can gain a strong following in the western half of the state (ie, incremental revenue to athletics)... get facilities upgraded, strengthen ties. build up the endowments, etc. It's not out of the question that a set of core Big Sky members might eventually make the jump, and we should put ourselves in position to move along with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Making a decision to keep the nickname and live under ncaa sanctions sounds like an irrational decision. Then suggesting an fbs move on top of that sounds like a recipe for failure. It would seem that you would need to clean house of your current administration too, and reduce several sports to fund and balance for fbs. There are lots of negative to this line of thinking. Its a nickname for goodness sakes. Should it be the number 1 Priority? Seems crazy, no matter how much fans want to bow down to the nickname. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB#11 Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Its a nickname for goodness sakes. Should it be the number 1 Priority? Seems crazy, no matter how much fans want to bow down to the nickname. From your point of view it may seem crazy, from mine it seems crazy not to fight for the Fighting Sioux name. I've been around the Sioux name for close to 50 years, the University of North Dakota has embraced the name and did more for Native Americans than any University in our area by far for 80 years. This whole thing was started by the NCAA, how do they know how things work up here? So now we need approval of 2 tribes...Spirit Lake approves by a large margin...Standing Rock would do the same if given the chance, we all know how crooked that operation was. Herd...It's very easy to come on this board and spout out "It's a nickname for goodness sake", espically when you're an NDSU fan. For a lot of us it's very special, my 8 year old boy keeps asking me "why do we have to get rid of the Fighting Sioux name?". I really don't know how to answer that question. I pray common sense and "what's right is right" prevails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakotadan Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Its a nickname for goodness sakes. Should it be the number 1 Priority? Seems crazy, no matter how much fans want to bow down to the nickname. I'm sure you would be saying the exact same thing if it was ndsu in this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herd Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'm sure you would be saying the exact same thing if it was ndsu in this situation. Id say, enough already, the university is more important than a nickname. If it was a choice of ongoing ncaa sanctions or not, id drop the name and turn page. Dozens of colleges have gone through the same thing and survived, even thrived. why is a nickname more important than the positive image of the University? Will the university implode and close its Doors? If you think I'd want to maintain the bison nickname under ncaa sanctions, you are wrong. UND has a legal agreement with the ncaa, what are the legal ramifications of backing out of it? This problem is not going away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.